Hi, I'm new to Wave Corrector and have so far only corrected around 20 recordings. It is clear from my limited experience that the best indicator for a good corrected recording is the initial condition of the vinyl. I have tried a couple of cleaning approaches and am currently using the "Disk Doctors" cleaning fluid and pads, with reasonable success.

The problem is that I don't know what target to be aiming for in terms of detected clicks. So far my best has been 6000 for a complete (both sides) recording of a Suzanne Vega LP. My worst has been 100,000 for a local (South African) pressing of a 1955 Goons recording. This improved to 50,000 after a second round of cleaning.

Most of my recordings seem to be around 25,000. Is this good, bad, terrible? I don't know. Clearly lower is better, but can somebody with more experience of Wave Corrector suggest a target for me to aim at?

I am also fairly new, and have processed about 30 LPs. The lowest number of clicks I have logged on one side of an LP recording is about 3,000, using level 3 as the default click sensitivity setting. These albums are almost in mint condition. I don't have any fancy cleaning solutions, just a the standard velvet cloth.

Here's my take on clicks/album side versus the condition of the LP.

Less than 3,000: Mint LP

Less than 5,000: Almost mint. Has been played a few times and has been well looked after.

Around 10,000; Above average. The copy has been played a number of times on a quality turntable and has been taken care of.

Up to 20,000; Average. This copy has seen had a lot of play, but still produces respectible results after correction.

Over 25,000; Below average to poor. The copy is not only dirty, but is also worn. This is below my tolerance. If the source is rare I will continue. However, if it is still available I'll capitulate and purchase a commerical CD.

Many of my LPs were purchased used, and in some cases I have sensed a persistent surface noise caused by some type of anti-static chemical residue. I am looking to purchase an advanced cleaning system, which I will use to process those albums again. I would welcome any recommendations.

Thanks Chris. Since your counts are for one side and mine are for both sides it appears we have had much the same experience. (I record both sides as a single .wav file). At times the Suzanne Vega transcription (6,000 clicks for the combined sides) is as quiet as a standard CD, except richer.

I have around 300 LP's and most have been with me a long time. I think a count in the low teens for both sides is technically feasible for a lot of them.

Do any of the veteran users in the forum have an opinion on Chris's click ratings?

With regard to cleaning, the Disc Doctor system seems to work quite well, although it is a manual system. My experience with the Goons seems to indicate that multiple cleanings can have real benefits.

I also want to do some experimentation with the time of the day that I record. Since I live in JHB at an altitude of nearly 6,000 ft, the air can be very dry, encouraging static. There is a theory that recording late in the evening may yield less noise as the air is cooler and possible damper. (Maybe I should buy a humidifier?)

thorn10 wrote:I am also fairly new, and have processed about 30 LPs. The lowest number of clicks I have logged on one side of an LP recording is about 3,000, using level 3 as the default click sensitivity setting. These albums are almost in mint condition. I don't have any fancy cleaning solutions, just a the standard velvet cloth.

Here's my take on clicks/album side versus the condition of the LP.

Less than 3,000: Mint LP

Less than 5,000: Almost mint. Has been played a few times and has been well looked after.

Around 10,000; Above average. The copy has been played a number of times on a quality turntable and has been taken care of.

Up to 20,000; Average. This copy has seen had a lot of play, but still produces respectible results after correction.

Over 25,000; Below average to poor. The copy is not only dirty, but is also worn. This is below my tolerance. If the source is rare I will continue. However, if it is still available I'll capitulate and purchase a commerical CD.

Many of my LPs were purchased used, and in some cases I have sensed a persistent surface noise caused by some type of anti-static chemical residue. I am looking to purchase an advanced cleaning system, which I will use to process those albums again. I would welcome any recommendations.

For "clean" records, I use just an anti-static cleanig liquid and a velvet brush and then allow to air-dry before playing.

I use click-detection setting of 2, and then super-scan at the same setting three times. This usually gets me down to fewer than 20 clicks on the final pass. I find (this is my personal opinion) this method to give better results than a single pass at a higher setting.
Arnie

adaywayne wrote:I use click-detection setting of 2, and then super-scan at the same setting three times. This usually gets me down to fewer than 20 clicks on the final pass. I find (this is my personal opinion) this method to give better results than a single pass at a higher setting.Arnie

That's a very interesting tip. It'll greatly reduce the number of 'false positives' while still capturing most of the audible clicks.
Thanks

adaywayne wrote:I use click-detection setting of 2, and then super-scan at the same setting three times. This usually gets me down to fewer than 20 clicks on the final pass. I find (this is my personal opinion) this method to give better results than a single pass at a higher setting.Arnie

That's a very interesting tip. It'll greatly reduce the number of 'false positives' while still capturing most of the audible clicks.Thanks

And I find it very rare that any of those few remaining clicks is audible (to my ear, at least!)
Arnie

I am aslo new to wave corrector. I have transfered about 30 lps to cd. I have an extensive classical lp collection with many rare Mercurys, RCAs, etc. I'm getting better each time I do a transfer, but this is what seems most effetive so far.
I've found that a setting of 3 for scratch detetion is fine for strings only, but when there is a lot of percussion (transient material) a setting of 3 generates a lot of false detections. I generally scan at 2 when I open a file (generally less than 100 clicks) then delete any false detections at the 2 level (which can be more than half of total clicks when harps, cymbals, or loud brass are present) then block scan at level 3 for long periods where only strings or low volume (or less transient material) is present. Then I manually delete any remaining clicks that are audible (usually only one to five). I've oly done one rock album, but with there louder recorded levels a setting of 2 might be just right except between tracks.

ramiller wrote:I am aslo new to wave corrector. I have transfered about 30 lps to cd. I have an extensive classical lp collection with many rare Mercurys, RCAs, etc. I'm getting better each time I do a transfer, but this is what seems most effetive so far. I've found that a setting of 3 for scratch detetion is fine for strings only, but when there is a lot of percussion (transient material) a setting of 3 generates a lot of false detections. I generally scan at 2 when I open a file (generally less than 100 clicks) then delete any false detections at the 2 level (which can be more than half of total clicks when harps, cymbals, or loud brass are present) then block scan at level 3 for long periods where only strings or low volume (or less transient material) is present. Then I manually delete any remaining clicks that are audible (usually only one to five). I've oly done one rock album, but with there louder recorded levels a setting of 2 might be just right except between tracks.

Very interesting. Most of my LPs are early jazz, with a heavy emphasis on piano. I find the 3-setting to give some false positives on the highest piano notes. Drum-brush accompaniment can also be tricky. But at 2-setting I find that most false positives (unless there are a lot bunched close together) don't result in any audible artefacts, at least to my old ears, so I usually don't bother deleting them.
Arnie